|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 19, 2021 13:29:02 GMT
from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Father Ludwig Ott.
1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact it a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are "de fide definita."
2. Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
3. A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.
4. A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).
5. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.
6. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opinio tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.
With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible.
Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obsequiosum," that is "reverent silence," does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2021 17:12:30 GMT
"With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible."
And it's because of the above, that like Humane Vitae is not accepted by some theologians as infallible doctrine and others claim it is.
The debate continues even today
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 22, 2021 17:17:17 GMT
"With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible." And it's because of the above, that like Humane Vitae is not accepted by some theologians as infallible doctrine and others claim it is. The debate continues even today
It falls under the ordinary infallibility of the magisterium, in that it has been consistently taught, and nothing has ever been taught to the contrary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2021 17:23:38 GMT
"With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible." And it's because of the above, that like Humane Vitae is not accepted by some theologians as infallible doctrine and others claim it is. The debate continues even today
It falls under the ordinary infallibility of the magisterium, in that it has been consistently taught, and nothing has ever been taught to the contrary.
And it's been debated by theologians ever since it was released to the public. I'm not saying it's not infallible, just that there is debate over whether or not it is. I've seen good arguments from both camps. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2021 17:27:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 22, 2021 17:41:34 GMT
It falls under the ordinary infallibility of the magisterium, in that it has been consistently taught, and nothing has ever been taught to the contrary.
And it's been debated by theologians ever since it was released to the public. I'm not saying it's not infallible, just that there is debate over whether or not it is. I've seen good arguments from both camps. It is true that theologians can debate such issues as "does it indeed violate the natural law?", "is the natural law a sufficient framework for arguing against it?" --- personally, I wondered if Paul VI took the risk of "putting all his eggs in one basket" by using that line of reasoning, but OTOH he honed it down to the finest point possible, "it is intrinsically immoral and here's why" --- and so on, but I don't think the average young engaged or married Catholic couple is thinking along those lines, the vast majority of them wouldn't have that level of theological sophistication. No, from everything I've ever seen, they just say something like "I don't think there's anything wrong with it, it's 'modern times' and everybody does it, most Catholics have no problem with it, and NFP would be too hard". They are basically saying "we don't want to go along with that teaching", and some of the more benighted, less well-catechized, think "the Church did away with that in the spirit of Vatican II" (or something like that). It's not like they ever hear it from the pulpit or get asked about it in the confessional. It's not like they are ever told they must not receive communion if they are using it. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 22, 2021 17:58:31 GMT
That indeed is a good article. HLI puts out a lot of good material, indeed, I even corresponded with Fr Paul Marx, founder of HLI, regarding the subject of contraception. I have now entered my fifth decade of being in this battle, it's nothing new to me.
However, better be careful, their address is "4 Family Life Lane, Front Royal, Virginia", and that is also the address of LifeSiteNews. I'm not sure to what extent the two organizations work together, or whether they simply rent space in the same office suite --- there is a cluster of Catholic-oriented entities in the immediate vicinity of Christendom College, and it may simply be a case of the real estate developer leasing separate or adjacent offices to two like-minded organizations --- but LSN has been the source of "much heat and little light" as of late here on this forum.
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Dec 30, 2021 15:11:57 GMT
... from everything I've ever seen, they just say something like "I don't think there's anything wrong with it, it's 'modern times' and everybody does it, most Catholics have no problem with it, and NFP would be too hard". They are basically saying "we don't want to go along with that teaching", and some of the more benighted, less well-catechized, think "the Church did away with that in the spirit of Vatican II" (or something like that)... I have seen discussions from E. Orthodox saying that they do not see that much difference between artificial birth control and NFP (when NFP is used to prevent conception). |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 30, 2021 15:40:03 GMT
... from everything I've ever seen, they just say something like "I don't think there's anything wrong with it, it's 'modern times' and everybody does it, most Catholics have no problem with it, and NFP would be too hard". They are basically saying "we don't want to go along with that teaching", and some of the more benighted, less well-catechized, think "the Church did away with that in the spirit of Vatican II" (or something like that)... I have seen discussions from E. Orthodox saying that they do not see that much difference between artificial birth control and NFP (when NFP is used to prevent conception).
Well, there is. It is the use of two different methods to the same end, viz. avoidance of pregnancy, but one method is immoral, and the other method is morally acceptable. I say "avoidance" because with ABC, at least in theory (all methods can fail), the method is absolute prevention of pregnancy, whereas with NFP, the method is making pregnancy highly unlikely --- though not impossible --- but placing no barrier, other than timing and observable signs of fertility, to conception. Prevention of pregnancy runs contrary to the natural law, whereas fertility awareness does not. No obstacle is placed to the possibility that "the signs are wrong", or that if Our Lord wills a child to be conceived, He will allow the woman's organism to release an egg, have it fertilized through the natural marital act, and have it implant into the uterus. There are many "oops babies" where NFP is used, and the only Catholic response is to glorify God for His gift, and to rely upon Providence for the means to raise this child. (It would be nice for the Church to have a fund for faithful Catholic couples to draw upon, to provide a form of relief where there is truly a question of "not being able to feed one extra mouth". Maybe couples who have contracepted in the past, and have enriched themselves accordingly, could donate to it as a form of penance? There are a lot of well-to-do Catholic families, who are that way because they've been able to "customize" the size of their families through mortally sinful means. And, no, I don't have figures, I just know what I see, and I'm not naive enough to think that they've all used NFP or have had fertility issues. Some, possibly, but not all. Again, I'm not that naive.)
NFP can be used with selfish intent, used when it cannot really be justified, and that is sinful as well, but that is tied to intent, not to the act itself. By the same token, ABC could be used with altruistic intent --- "my wife could die if she conceived" (but keep in mind no ABC method is infallible), "it wouldn't be fair to our other children to have one more, we can barely support the ones we have already" --- and could have a just motive behind it, but the means still remain intrinsically immoral. It is a good thing for me to be financially solvent, but I may not rob a bank to become that way. The analogy should be clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Dec 31, 2021 18:00:30 GMT
"With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible." And it's because of the above, that like Humane Vitae is not accepted by some theologians as infallible doctrine and others claim it is. The debate continues even today Even if the pope has not decreed this ex cathedra; therefore, meaning it is not infallible, it is still an authorative teaching of the pope's ordinary magisterium and we are required to assent to it by religious submission of our intellect and will (Sheehan, 1962).
Sheehan, M (1962) as revised by Joseph, P. (2009) Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine (6th/4th Edition)*. London, UK: Baronius Press Ltd (ISBN-13: 9781905574452).
*It used to be two separate volumes: This combined one is the 6th edition of Apologetics and the 4th of Catholic Doctrine.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 31, 2021 18:26:12 GMT
"With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible." And it's because of the above, that like Humane Vitae is not accepted by some theologians as infallible doctrine and others claim it is. The debate continues even today Even if the pope has not decreed this ex cathedra; therefore, meaning it is not infallible, it is still an authorative teaching of the pope's ordinary magisterium and we are required to assent to it by religious submission of our intellect and will (Sheehan, 1962).
Sheehan, M (1962) as revised by Joseph, P. (2009) Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine (6th/4th Edition)*. London, UK: Baronius Press Ltd (ISBN-13: 9781905574452).
*It used to be two separate volumes: This combined one is the 6th edition of Apologetics and the 4th of Catholic Doctrine.
While it enjoys ordinary infallibility (not least because the Church has never even suggested that anything to the contrary could be true), no, it is not ex cathedra, and I'm not sure that moral teachings --- as opposed to doctrines or dogmas of faith --- even can be declared infallible ex cathedra. Maybe moral theology just doesn't work that way.
Abortion would be an example. Without advocating that an innocent unborn human life at any stage of development may ever be directly, deliberately, and willfully taken, there are still too many variables. What if, in fact, ensoulment does not take place at the moment of conception? We don't know whether it does or not. Surely, it takes place very early, but at that moment, one day after, seven days after, X number of days after, the Church doesn't teach definitively one way or the other. (And if one really wishes to be granular, even when sperm meets egg, the chromosomes do not fuse together in one nanosecond, it is a process that only ends in unique DNA being created.) Is it, then, murder at that stage? Or something less? Not saying that it is morally acceptable, but that at Phase In Question X, it might not be murder, because there is no immortal soul. Does "murder" depend on a human soul being in the body? Or upon something else?
There are other difficulties aside from pinning down ensoulment. For instance, what if a doctor has to make a judgment call, and get the fetus out of the uterus, hoping that it will live even though it is very premature? What if its survival is more unlikely than likely? What if future advances in medical technology allow fetuses at very early stages of development to be placed in artificial wombs, incubators taken one step further, you could say? And what of Dr Bernard Nathanson's eminently sensible analogy of abortion in the case of danger to the mother's life perhaps being analogous to two men drowning at sea, one a sane man, one a madman thrashing about and pulling both into the deep to drown, lashed together with some kind of strap, and the sane man could take a knife, cut the strap, let the madman drown, and save himself by then being able to swim to shore? If the Church were to declare abortion to be murder with ex cathedra infallibility, how, precisely, would she define "abortion"? Again, all kinds of difficulties that might militate against an ex cathedra infallble declaration.
Note, too, that even with the dogma of the Assumption, which surely was declared infallibly, the Church did not attempt to define whether Mary died or not --- because we just don't know --- so she phrased the declaration so as not to address that aspect of it. The Church did not affirm anything she could not prove with razor-sharp absolute precision.
|
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Jan 1, 2022 14:01:01 GMT
Even if the pope has not decreed this ex cathedra; therefore, meaning it is not infallible, it is still an authorative teaching of the pope's ordinary magisterium and we are required to assent to it by religious submission of our intellect and will (Sheehan, 1962).
Sheehan, M (1962) as revised by Joseph, P. (2009) Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine (6th/4th Edition)*. London, UK: Baronius Press Ltd (ISBN-13: 9781905574452).
*It used to be two separate volumes: This combined one is the 6th edition of Apologetics and the 4th of Catholic Doctrine.
While it enjoys ordinary infallibility (not least because the Church has never even suggested that anything to the contrary could be true), no, it is not ex cathedra, and I'm not sure that moral teachings --- as opposed to doctrines or dogmas of faith --- even can be declared infallible ex cathedra. Maybe moral theology just doesn't work that way.
Abortion would be an example. Without advocating that an innocent unborn human life at any stage of development may ever be directly, deliberately, and willfully taken, there are still too many variables. What if, in fact, ensoulment does not take place at the moment of conception? We don't know whether it does or not. Surely, it takes place very early, but at that moment, one day after, seven days after, X number of days after, the Church doesn't teach definitively one way or the other. (And if one really wishes to be granular, even when sperm meets egg, the chromosomes do not fuse together in one nanosecond, it is a process that only ends in unique DNA being created.) Is it, then, murder at that stage? Or something less? Not saying that it is morally acceptable, but that at Phase In Question X, it might not be murder, because there is no immortal soul. Does "murder" depend on a human soul being in the body? Or upon something else?
There are other difficulties aside from pinning down ensoulment. For instance, what if a doctor has to make a judgment call, and get the fetus out of the uterus, hoping that it will live even though it is very premature? What if its survival is more unlikely than likely? What if future advances in medical technology allow fetuses at very early stages of development to be placed in artificial wombs, incubators taken one step further, you could say? And what of Dr Bernard Nathanson's eminently sensible analogy of abortion in the case of danger to the mother's life perhaps being analogous to two men drowning at sea, one a sane man, one a madman thrashing about and pulling both into the deep to drown, lashed together with some kind of strap, and the sane man could take a knife, cut the strap, let the madman drown, and save himself by then being able to swim to shore? If the Church were to declare abortion to be murder with ex cathedra infallibility, how, precisely, would she define "abortion"? Again, all kinds of difficulties that might militate against an ex cathedra infallble declaration.
Note, too, that even with the dogma of the Assumption, which surely was declared infallibly, the Church did not attempt to define whether Mary died or not --- because we just don't know --- so she phrased the declaration so as not to address that aspect of it. The Church did not affirm anything she could not prove with razor-sharp absolute precision.
Well, I'm stumped. Well and truly stumped.  Whilst I understand the plain words you have written I'm not sure why you have. I'm even far less sure how they relate to my previous post which you quoted. Please help. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 1, 2022 14:59:35 GMT
While it enjoys ordinary infallibility (not least because the Church has never even suggested that anything to the contrary could be true), no, it is not ex cathedra, and I'm not sure that moral teachings --- as opposed to doctrines or dogmas of faith --- even can be declared infallible ex cathedra. Maybe moral theology just doesn't work that way.
Abortion would be an example. Without advocating that an innocent unborn human life at any stage of development may ever be directly, deliberately, and willfully taken, there are still too many variables. What if, in fact, ensoulment does not take place at the moment of conception? We don't know whether it does or not. Surely, it takes place very early, but at that moment, one day after, seven days after, X number of days after, the Church doesn't teach definitively one way or the other. (And if one really wishes to be granular, even when sperm meets egg, the chromosomes do not fuse together in one nanosecond, it is a process that only ends in unique DNA being created.) Is it, then, murder at that stage? Or something less? Not saying that it is morally acceptable, but that at Phase In Question X, it might not be murder, because there is no immortal soul. Does "murder" depend on a human soul being in the body? Or upon something else?
There are other difficulties aside from pinning down ensoulment. For instance, what if a doctor has to make a judgment call, and get the fetus out of the uterus, hoping that it will live even though it is very premature? What if its survival is more unlikely than likely? What if future advances in medical technology allow fetuses at very early stages of development to be placed in artificial wombs, incubators taken one step further, you could say? And what of Dr Bernard Nathanson's eminently sensible analogy of abortion in the case of danger to the mother's life perhaps being analogous to two men drowning at sea, one a sane man, one a madman thrashing about and pulling both into the deep to drown, lashed together with some kind of strap, and the sane man could take a knife, cut the strap, let the madman drown, and save himself by then being able to swim to shore? If the Church were to declare abortion to be murder with ex cathedra infallibility, how, precisely, would she define "abortion"? Again, all kinds of difficulties that might militate against an ex cathedra infallble declaration.
Note, too, that even with the dogma of the Assumption, which surely was declared infallibly, the Church did not attempt to define whether Mary died or not --- because we just don't know --- so she phrased the declaration so as not to address that aspect of it. The Church did not affirm anything she could not prove with razor-sharp absolute precision.
Well, I'm stumped. Well and truly stumped. Whilst I understand the plain words you have written I'm not sure why you have. I'm even far less sure how they relate to my previous post which you quoted. Please help.
My comments were simply a further elaboration on the concept of ex cathedra infallibility versus ordinary infalliblity, and how questions of moral theology may, by their very nature, not lend themselves to ex cathedra declaration. And moral decisions often cannot be reduced down to black-and-white definitions --- that is where casuistry comes in. The "trolley problem" comes immediately to mind --- I've never seen that as particularly complicated, you just have to choose between whether you fail to act, and many die while one is saved, or you act to save the many, and one dies, but many people do see it as complicated. Do we not say "what we have done, and what we have failed to do?".
|
|
alng
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by alng on Jan 1, 2022 17:53:24 GMT
The "trolley problem" comes immediately to mind --- I've never seen that as particularly complicated, you just have to choose between whether you fail to act, and many die while one is saved, or you act to save the many, and one dies, I would not pull the lever. By pulling the lever you assume the position of a judge who will decide who dies or not. And I don't see where I would have that authority. Further, by pulling the lever, you assume responsibility for murdering that one person on the track to where you have directed the train. This means that the family of the victim of your action has grounds for a lawsuit against you since the victim died as a direct result of your pulling the lever. You will now be subject over a long period of time to a series of hostile moves by the lawyers of the victim's family. Depending on what a jury may decide you could face bankruptcy and thus cause grave financial harm and headaches for yourself and for your family. When faced with pulling the lever, I think it is better to step back and reflect about it. Generally, I would need a lot of time to make such a serious decision about taking someone's life. I would not be able to decide then and there and so the train would pass without my pulling the lever. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Jan 1, 2022 22:04:40 GMT
The "trolley problem" comes immediately to mind --- I've never seen that as particularly complicated, you just have to choose between whether you fail to act, and many die while one is saved, or you act to save the many, and one dies, I would not pull the lever. By pulling the lever you assume the position of a judge who will decide who dies or not. And I don't see where I would have that authority. Further, by pulling the lever, you assume responsibility for murdering that one person on the track to where you have directed the train. This means that the family of the victim of your action has grounds for a lawsuit against you since the victim died as a direct result of your pulling the lever. You will now be subject over a long period of time to a series of hostile moves by the lawyers of the victim's family. Depending on what a jury may decide you could face bankruptcy and thus cause grave financial harm and headaches for yourself and for your family. When faced with pulling the lever, I think it is better to step back and reflect about it. Generally, I would need a lot of time to make such a serious decision about taking someone's life. I would not be able to decide then and there and so the train would pass without my pulling the lever.
I hear you, but one could counter as follows:
By not pulling the level, I also assume the position of a judge who will decide who dies or not. By not pulling it, I assume responsibility for allowing all those people on the train to die. Would the families of those victims have grounds for a lawsuit against me? --- "You could have prevented all of those people from dying, but you just stood there and let it happen, all in the name of your particular sense of morality" And won't their lawyers make a series of "hostile moves" as well? The temporal harms you cite would then be magnified. In an extreme case such as that, there isn't the luxury of reflective time.
|
|
Whilst I understand the plain words you have written I'm not sure why you have. I'm even far less sure how they relate to my previous post which you quoted. Please help.